What do you mean fairies aren't real, Professor Dawkins?

Fairy Sculptures, Cottingley

Richard Dawkins, High Priest of the New Atheists, has (or perhaps hasn't) been having a go a fairy tales:

Fairy tales are harmful to children because they “inculcate a view of the world which includes supernaturalism”, according to Professor Richard Dawkins.

Now part of me collapses in laughter at this statement since it is essentially the same as the desire by some over-enthusiastic Christians to ban Harry Potter because it has witches and bad stuff like that in the book. Or - and I wrote about this a bit ago - the campaign in the USA to ban Dungeons & Dragons. In the latter case, just as with Dawkins and his mates, with lurid tales of how D&D corrupted young people.

Now I'm sure that Dawkins didn't quite mean what he was saying (although this is very sloppy from a scientific literalist) - I'm sure he's not suggesting that Hans Christian Anderson's stories are torn from the shelves and burned or that age warnings should be attached to The Hobbit or to Disney's Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. But what this does reveal is that some people - Dawkins being one - seem incapable of understanding a different sort of reality. For them, the only reality in the reality of St Thomas - proved by thrusting the atheist arm elbow deep into the spear wound.

A while ago I was talking with my son (who as far as I know is an atheist) about the latest fantasy series he was reading and one passing comment was along the lines of: "it has an interesting magic system". As ever with alternative realities in fiction (which is all fairy tales are really), we are able to suspend disbelief so as to explore what that alternative reality might mean were it, so to speak, real. However, one of the consistent themes in such tales - whether a twelve volume fantasy blockbuster or one of those Grimm stories - is that magic and the use of magic has consequences (oddly enough this isn't the case with Harry Potter where magic seems mostly effortless and free of downside).

Thus, what we get from fairy tales is a lesson about the use of power. Whether the debate is about the use of wishes or the application of power in pursuit of vanity, the tales have a moral depth that, perhaps, Dawkins is missing in framing his criticism.  Indeed Dawkins cannot get beyond his conception of 'supernatural' in discussing the role of magic in stories - perhaps he should remember the words of hard SF writer, Arthur C. Clarke: 

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Once we have crossed the bridge, in the manner of Piers Anthony, from Mundania to Xanth (and children are much better as crossing from real to fantasy and back) then we can explore the world of magic safely. The idea that this exploration is without critical thinking is again to misunderstand - the same questions, fears, challenges and moral dilemmas exist in the land of faerie as do in our dull old world. It's just that the system of magic - whatever form it might take - allows for a different response.

To take a stark example of how this works. In David Brin's 'The Practice Effect' he creates a world where things improve with use - so to make a spade you make something that looks vaguely like a spade and start using it to dig. The more you dig the better it gets as a tool. After many years use it becomes the spade tool-lovers would die to own. But beware, if you neglect its use it will deteriorate eventually returning to the original vaguely spade-like thing.

So, while Brin constructs a story round this concept (where the hero is a physicist), he also explores how society would be different if this 'practice effect' applied. On one level it's a good bit of (slightly sciencey) fantasy but it also asks how environment shapes moral behaviour or forms society - Brin has peasants parading around in fine clothes because they're made to do so by aristocrats who want to stop their wardrobes going off.

In the apparent world of Dawkins, children who immerse themselves in these fantastic worlds are being harmed. The nature of the harm in question isn't specified - Dawkins, one presumes, is concerned that by reading stories about fairies, dragons or sorcerers, the child will be tempted by the atheist's demon - a thing called god. But Dawkins does this without any evidence of harm - he simply believes that because fairy tales have the "supernatural" in them they are harming the child. For a man so wedded to critical thinking and the skeptical scriptures, it seems odd that he should make such presumptive and unevidenced accusations about fairy tales.

And, as people in Cottingley know, fairies - or at least photographs of fairies - are definitely real!

....

A good week for mythical beasts and monsters...

....

Not trolls this time - although the proper trolls are, I'm told rather put out by being associated with spotty teenagers. Nor is it gnomes, which will disappoint Steiner-watchers.

It is firstly unicorns:

"Archaeologists of the History Institute of the DPRK Academy of Social Sciences have recently reconfirmed a lair of the unicorn rode by King Tongmyong, founder of the Koguryo Kingdom,"

This is wonderful news. Although it all seems wrong. We all know that unicorns live in enchanted woods and have a thing for virginal girls (or something like that). So I wonder whether we've been told the full story of King Tongmyong? Could this legendary king have really been a girl?

And then we have vampires:

The story of Sava Savanovic is a legend, but strange things did occur in these parts back in the old days," said 55-year-old housewife Mil-ka Prokic, holding a string of garlic in one hand and a large wooden stake in another, as an appropriately moody mist rose above the surrounding hills.

Indeed, the local council in this remote part of Serbia has even advised the pocketing of garlic and the waving of crosses!

In other news there are still fairies at the bottom of my garden. ....


....

Campaign Diary: Days Seven and Eight - white dots and chasing fairies

 

A quiet start to the week - took an evening off from the doorstep as Kathryn had driven to Milton Keynes and back therefore earning rest rather than doorbells. Still most of the delivery is out the door - got Wilsden to sort out but that should be done before the end of the week.

Took a wander up to Harecroft, a little hamlet between Cullingworth and Wilsden, where there were concerns about the sudden appearance of white dots on the cherished stone flagged footways. Residents - quite understandably - feared the worst and that the council were planning to rip them up and lay low maintenance tarmac instead!

Turns out the white dots were a precaution - there had been a couple of attempts to steal the flags while some general repairs were ongoing. Painting white dots on them is a disincentive to theft as it would mark then as stolen! We learn something every day!

Still chasing whoever's responsible for the Cottingley Beck area - want to get on with sorting out what is a pretty important site the management of which is causing local residents (who are, in this case, paying directly for the upkeep) a great deal of annoyance and irritation.

Back to Harden this evening for canvassing - sun's out so should be good.

....

Campaign Diary: Day One - adventures in fairyland!

On the fairy estate at Cottingley this evening – Lysander Way, Goodfellow Close, Titania Close, Oberon Way – plenty of support but more conversation than I remember. People raised some real concerns – some national like tuition fees, some local like the lack of police cover after 11pm and the parking problems outside Cottingley Village Primary (something of a long-standing nightmare, that one). And I had a long chat about gritting – real issue on these newer estates as the gritters can’t turn round in the shaped dead end streets.

Good to hear a mostly positive response from the Asian voters on the estate – and to note the normalisation of this place. Nice Tory voting white bloke in a house he bought from equally nice Tory voting Asians!

One big worry – the register is poor, three or four examples of people who should be registered but aren’t which is very sloppy. When we get to Hill Crest in Denholme the gap in the register reaches one in ten houses – all occupied.  It worries me that people are losing the opportunity to vote because the bureaucracy can’t be bothered.

Day One positive – lots to do and a few e-mails from today’s delivery which is good. Thirty days to go before polling day, feet a little sore but pleased by what I’ve seen and heard.

...

Fairies....

When the five West Yorkshire Councils sold Leeds Bradford Airport a few years ago some of the money was made available at word level for special projects. In Cottingley we got some fairies - what else!

 

And the fairies - or rather the artistic remembrance of what put Cottingley on the map - get an ace setting looking towards the Cornerstone Centre (which replaced and now incorporates St Michael & All Angels Church) across the newly planted Oval and the upgraded Parade.

Makes it all worthwhile really....

 

But it's not down to me but down to the local church, to Cottingley Community Association - to ten years of plodding away at improvements with no cash, no special support, no regeneration 'funny money'. And it's really great to see it nearly complete!

....

The Gardener....

For many years Kathryn and I have been visiting fine gardens up and down the land - a pastime we share with millions of others. And with those others we admire the lovingly created beds, the fine trees, the creativity of the landscaping and the manner in which old and new are blended into that wonderful English thing - a great garden.

But until we visited Hampton Court (the one in Herefordshire) this Summer, we had speculated on whether the gardening was done, not by human hand, but through the agency of fairies, elves and gnomes. In all our visits we struggled to recall ever seeing any gardener actually gardening. There were always employees around - selling teas, manning tills, marshalling car parking, providing information and flogging plants - but nobody digging, hoeing, planting or mowing. No obvious sign of the activities that those of us with more modest gardens know take time and effort.

It may be that Hampton Court is unique - perhaps not yet admitted to the secrets of supernatural gardening - but for the first time (as the picture above testifies) we witnessed a person actually doing some gardening.

Unless of course he's really one of The Gentry and the human form is but an illusion?

....

Friday Fungus: The Pressures of being a Number One blogger!

Yet again we arrive at the time of year when serious political blogging folk look with trepidation to Mr Dale’s lists. Eyes scan up and down the lists asking ‘who’s up’ and ‘who’s down’. For some the journey from five or six in the list downwards through 20, 50, 70…90! Followed by relief at just sneaking into the top 100 – the fancy badge can still be displayed (assuming that, unlike my friendly computer fairies, you have the technical competence to transfer the badge to the blog).

Now as this blog is – without doubt or question – the Number One Blog in the category of right-wing blogs featuring mushrooms and fairies, I am making these observations from a position of smug superiority. So you are excited at moving up a few places in the ‘Scottish Bloggers’ category and at settling comfortably into a mid-table position among left-wing bloggers. I know that – among the elite of political mushroom bloggers and the noble class of bloggers who touch on The Gentry – I am the most authoritative, well-read and referred.

Why should I be concerned about the “top 100” Conservative blogs or some other list – these are worries for lesser folk, craven in their attention-seeking and obsessive in their bothering about rank. I am the numero uno of mycological, mythical, faerie bloggers (or at least the right wing ones).

And I would make a badge if my fairy friends knew how!

....

Wednesday Whimsey: Metaphysics, gnostics, sceptics and a defence of creationism

Let me start, dear reader, with the one clear fact in all this – there is a “creation”. OK it could be an entirely accidental creation, it could be a glorious combination of accident and subtle external intervention or the Great Goddess Woo might have made it from tears at the death of her pet dog. What you believe here isn’t important – what is important is enquiry – asking the question.

And this is where we have to distinguish between the sceptic’s question and the Gnostic’s question. Not only to recognise the distinction but also to appreciate that the two questions are complementary rather than conflicting. The scientist asks how it all came about – what was it that start the ball rolling (or the big bang banging if you prefer). And this is an important question to which there is no true answer merely a search for truth through the raising of further questions.

Now the Gnostic question is different – it is a metaphysical question rather than a matter of sceptical or scientific enquiry. It is to ask why. And this is done in the same spirit of enquiry as the scientist’s question. But with one major difference in that this enquiry does not provide an answer because the question is phrased in a way that makes it impossible to answer. Thus asking, “is there a god”, allows us to explore both sceptical enquiry of this question and also to consider the idea of godhead and the meaning of existence.

I do not claim superiority for either of the two questions – if I want to understand the world so as to exploit the wonders of the creation then I require scientific enquiry. Metaphysics – despite the misplaced claims of some – does not cure disease, bring riches or provide food and shelter. What metaphysics does do is to provide a context for us to consider why we love our partner, why we value community and how we deal with birth or death. I do not believe that scientific enquiry can fully answer these questions. And, more importantly, to attempt to use scientific enquiry in these matters is to use it as a tool of metaphysical rather than sceptical enquiry.

Under these latter circumstances, sceptical enquiry is no better than Aristolean logic, rabbinical discourse or the various tools of theological enquiry – from gnosis to Augustinianism. Which is not to say that sceptical enquiry cannot be used to examine metaphysical questions but that such a method of enquiry does not provide a less faith-based answer to those questions than other tools of enquiry.

So when we attack “teaching creationism” from the basis of science, we are right only so long as we are concerned with the teaching of science. We cannot say that stories of creation – however told – have no value and should not be allowed. This is to cut off reasoned metaphysical enquiry using a range of methods by saying only one method – sceptical enquiry – is valid in the exploration of metaphysics (which rather contradicts the central tenets of scepticism, of course). The term “teaching creationism” requires qualification – the addition of other words: “as scientific fact” or “as part of a science course”, is needed for the criticism to be valid.

Trying to understand the magic of creation using only scientific or sceptical enquiry does not work. We can explain and describe bits of that creation but the full appreciation requires other methods and other tools. The scientist tells me that The Gentry are just an ancient myth but I know the truth of it, I know the scientists are wrong. There really are fairies at the bottom of my garden.

....

How do you measure "fair"?

OK so we are used to political campaigns, political parties and the media crying foul about one thing or another being “unfair”. You only need to look at the political slogans in this current election to see how important the word “fair” is to campaigning. “A Future Fair for All” cry the Labour Party, “Building a Fairer Britain” echo the Liberal Democrats and from the furthest corner pipes the Green Party with “Fair is Worth Fighting For!”

Now as my regular readers know, I have issues with the idea of fairness – not that I think we should set out to be “unfair” but that life is (as nearly everyone’s mum and dad says at some point) not fair. Some folk seem to be more fortunate, prettier, cleverer, wittier and less prone to saying stupid things when keeping one’s gob shut might be more sensible. But, since ‘fairness’ is so important, I thought I’d ask how we know whether this or that policy is actually making things more fair.

If I play Newmarket with you and clean up all the pennies – is that fair? If we both turn up for an interview and I get the job because the interviewer liked me and not you – is that fair? Is it fair to take something off Fred and give it to Joe because Fred has more of that something? And when Fred’s extra is the result of good fortune (or what we see as good fortune), what then?

Surely (and assuming we can define it) luck is normally distributed? Some people are very, very lucky and some unfortunate folk seem cursed with ill-fortune. Now the latter may be the result of getting on the wrong side of The Gentry but I suspect it more likely just the curse of mathematics – that bastard normal distribution curve again! It seems the only way to make things fairer is to compress the curve – to have fewer fortunates and fewer unfortunates.

Measuring fairness requires us to measure good fortune, to assess luck and to then take action to redress (in part) the negative impact of luck by removing from the lucky that which they have gained as a result of good fortune rather than some other means (hard work, for example). This is plainly nonsense – and perhaps explains why so many advocates of “fairness” reject out of hand any sensible quantitative approach to the assessment of Government policy. That it is seen as “fair” by these advocates is quite enough! We shouldn’t worry whether is really makes for better or happier lives – misery will be fairly distributed!

++BREAKING NEWS: Goblins, fairies and pixies deny hacking MPs twitter account ++

In a dramatic twist to the story of David Wright’s mysterious hacker, the little people have denied being responsible for altering the MP’s tweet by adding the term “scum sucking.” The goblins have also denied stealing his lap top, interfering with his phone or any other actions designed to blacken the MP’s good name.

“I understand that various commenters including leading bloggers have suggested that only fairies, goblins or pixies could have made the alteration to David Wright’s twitter account,” said a spokesgoblin for King Oberon of the Fairies; “this may be true but we can assure you all that none of the king’s subjects were involved in amending the tweet or tweets of Mr David Wright MP.”

“For The Gentry to have interfered in human affairs in this way;” continued the spokesgoblin; “would have been a serious breach of the Treaty signed between Queen Mab and Queen Bess. Whatever you may say about elfkind, we keep to our interplaner agreements.”

With the obvious answer of supernatural intervention ruled out, this raises again the possibility that Mr Wright did in fact post a tweet including the term “scum-sucking”.

Fairy expert, Dr Elisa F. Godmother told The View from Cullingworth:

“This is a very serious accusation. Humans are wont to blame fairies for inexplicable events – “who did it then, the pixies” is an oft heard cry, mostly from parents faced with small children and broken crockery. But when these false allegations against fairykind affect Government, we can expect it to be raised by King Oberon’s representatives at the highest levels.”

“To me this seems a classic example of blaming the fairies for something for which the culprit is all too obvious. And anyway, fairies don’t use twitter.”

...

Apple iPad - carved from the living earth and powered by pixies

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Arthur C. Clarke, "Profiles of The Future", 1961 (Clarke's third law)


It seems that Steve Jobs has either taken the sage words of Arthur C Clarke to heart or else his Californian researchers really have discovered the practical application of sorcery. The iPad is says the advert:

“…a magical and revolutionary device.”

So forgive me if my mind glimpses a picture of cloaked and hooded men (and probably women too in this modern age of magical equality) gathered in secret cabal. Here, deep in some mystical crystal cave the spells are cast that create – from the living earth – this artifact of great power.

And elsewhere, in some sylvan glen a ritual takes place. Slender maidens and beautiful youths dance and sing. Noble gifts of food, drink and video games are laid on the soft, mossy forest floor. The little folk, the pixies, are contacted. And with these gifts the deal is struck. Oberon agrees to the project. The light from the will ‘o the wisp, the speed of the fairy herald, the strength of the gnome and the cheek of the brownie will be marshalled.

The iPad – that magical device – will live!!

Carved from the living Earth and powered by pixies!

...

Wednesday whimsy: On words and wishes.

***

The curtains are drawn, the lights dimmed, the birthday cake arrives bedecked with candles, the child’s face sparkles with joy and excitement. Time to blow out the candles…

“…wait,” someone cries, “you have to make a wish.”

The child pauses, catches breath, eyes are shut…

“Don’t tell us your wish,” another voice whispers, “or it won’t happen.”

The candles are blown out in one breath and the wish floats away with the last wisps of candlesmoke.

Lovely….but we worry. There is still something a little dirty about a wish, a little risky and dangerous. Wishes are tricky – not to be entered into lightly.

Stepping back from the moment of childish innocence above, we can see the risks – the way in which the selfishness of wishes may cause damage. “I want to be rich” – but at whose expense? “Make me more beautiful” – through some picture in the attic? “Make John love me” – and destroy some unwished for true love?

Wishes are important in fairy lore – often offered in reward for some service and quickly forgotten or regretted by the elf such wishes are the trickiest of all. The problems come from:

Haste: in the old tale of the Three Wishes the Goodman gets a sausage for a nose and wastes his wishes by thoughtless haste.

Payment: taking boons for payment from fairies is very risky as the princess found in Rumplestiltskin – the use of riddles, catch questions and deceit is a classic trick to avoid granting the wish

Pedantic interpretation: the wish granter interprets the wording very precisely – as Tom Holt’s hero in “Expecting Someone Taller” found. Asking to be the most handsome man simply made him Siegfried. Maybe wishing to be the richest would simply leave you owning Chelsea?

Wishes disrupt the normal world – which is why fairies promise them so readily yet deliver so reluctantly. For us to be a granted a wish near always means some change – and not always change we might desire.

As they say…beware of what you wish for, it might just come true.

...

Wednesday Whimsy: why I believe in Fairies

It has long struck me as odd that it is socially acceptable to believe in ghosts but considered a sign of utter madness to believe in fairies!

Of course it was not always so as a couple of girls in Cottingley showed - sensible grown men and women were taken in (maybe distracted by the day job of getting thousands of Frances and Elsie's neighbours blown to bits in Belgium) by their pictures of real live fairies!

It does however strike me that fairies are far more believable and understandable than ghosts - which makes absolutely no sense at all to me. At least I can see a route back to belief in the spirits of stone and tree and stream - things that may have no reality but which chime with our love of anthropomorphic representation. Indeed this humanising of the non-human seems a huge part of our modern culture perhaps suggesting that Paul Jennings was not so far off the mark with his spoof philosophy - resistentialism. "Les chose sont contra nous" - Jenning wrote: and do we not echo that every day in our talk of bugs and gremlins, fates and breakdown?

Surely these are modern day nature spirits - the 21st century fairies. Far more real than ghosts - merely things to scare or else reflecting a fearful realisation that our time on this earth is short and we have no idea what does or doesn't happen after.

So yes, I'm prepared to believe in fairies. But ghosts - no way, no such thing.
.